IR: EPA Kicks Tires on Airliners and Automobiles?
– IMPACT REPORT –
The following potential points of Impact have been derived from :
See: below for RELAYABLE remarks and info
So what will the immediate effects of this event be upon air and ground transport as we know it?
What does this mean for the Automobile, Aereonautic, and Airline industries?
Is this the kickstart they they need to start participating in building the Future? Or will the EPA simply try to entrench itself in a political imbroglio, that some right-wingers are already threatening to tie up in endless litigation?
The jury is still out on just how ecologically friendly electric cars really are, once you factor everything in like the increased production of rare and heavy metals for batteries, and the added GHG’s produced to generate that electricity needed to recharge. Surely there is no ‘electric alternative’ out there for the airline industry, which presumably has nothing but the purchase of dubious carbon credits to fall back on in order to stabilize itself in whatever turbulence will be generated from this event in a very rapidly changing climate for business and travel.
Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act is a 1,200-page climate change bill that places limits on US carbon dioxide emissions, and creates a cap-and-trade regime for most industries intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. if passed by the Senate and signed by Obama, US airlines will feel the impact in the form of a surcharge placed on fuel purchases to cover the cost of carbon permits that fuel producers will have to acquire. ATA has estimated the added cost at $5 billion in 2012, rising to $10 billion by 2020
“This cap-and-trade bill creates an onerous fuel tax on the airline industry,” ATA President and CEO James May said. “Fuel costs will skyrocket, hindering the ability of US airlines to continue to improve their environmental performance through fleet modernization and technological advances, weakening their ability to compete in the global markets.”
It remains unclear whether the EPA’s regulatory cudgel will spur Congress to take faster action on the climate legislation that is now mired in the Senate or whether it will provoke a backlash.
“The stick approach isn’t going to work. In fact, Congress may retaliate,” said Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Richard_G._Lugar “They could stop the funding, and they could change the law.”
Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, a utility that is the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, said Monday that “we have been a proponent . . . to a congressional approach to this undertaking. This is the most awkward way we could go about it.” The EPA had to comply with direction from the courts, Morris said, but “there are better approaches, more cost-effective approaches and more productive approaches.”
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.),http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Blanche_Lincoln chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she is concerned that the move “will create burdens on American industry without providing any significant environmental benefits.”
“I strongly urge EPA to wait for Congress to find a solution,” Lincoln said.
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.
EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world :
- Carbon dioxide
- Nitrous oxide
- Sulfur Hexafluoride –